I have avoided fats for so many years, it's affected my taste and I dislike fats attached to meat, it seems to upset my stomach as well. It's obviously present within meats but I suppose not eating much red meat and then only lean cuts. My "weight by date" software suggests 25gms of sat fat a day as being how much sat fat I should eat, I'm always between 0 and 20 gms. I'm also much less on total fats (saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and trans fats).
Only yesterday I had the results of a range of urine tests and gut bacteria tests which I had done at the suggestion of my Nutritional Therapist. A couple of things of note, although I have very healthy levels of testosterone I also have higher levels of estrogen - always knew I was in touch with my feminine side. I also have high levels of fat where it's shouldn't be, in my stool samples which means that my body doesn't process fat so well, it literally goes straight through me. I'm told that it should be broken down and absorbed in the small intestine before going on. I also have higher cholesterol levels if I eat more cheese, yogurt and cream.
I am puzzled by the interpretation of your results - you have been restricting fat for a long time if I've read your posts properly -
I appreciate that you've had a lot of tests done to try to identify the source of your problems. Are you sure that the fat in your stool samples is actually coming from the fat you eat ? Why would it be if you are not eating much fat?
All too often our advisers make this simplistic assumption that what goes in is directly correlated to what comes out - which is why the whole - don't eat cholesterol, saturated fats etc came about. It is precisely because our medical/ nutritional/ pharmaceutical professions made these simplistic assumptions that the progrssive illness requiring more drugs viscous cycle gets started.
I avoided fats like the plague for nigh on 40 years and all my blood works gradually became dreadful. It was precisely because I had been on a strict low calorie, low fat diet for so long at the point that I was diagnosed - which led me to do the complete opposite - with a stunning result in my blood profile and improvement in blood sugars.
I eat close to average of 95g fats per day of which 35g is saturated. There is advice everywhere on the internet including the NHS that tells me that this will send my cholesterol soaring and the level of fat in my blood sky high and trigger a heart attack .
In fact the precise opposite happened re lipid results. ( heart attack we will see eventually ! )
My theory is that I don't have trigs aka sat fat (only 0.8) in my blood stream because I have enough being ingested - and that is also why all my other lipid profiles have improved so dramatically because for the very first time in my life my body is getting the right nutrients.
So could it be the same in that fat in stools comes from the carbs you eat ( or possibly in your case protein - if you can't eat fats and you are already restricting carbs ) . Or even comes from the extreme need to mobilise your own fats as a result of a diet so low in overall nutrients for so long?
On the cholesterol levels - what goes up? Trigs. hdl or ldl. Does the ratios of ldl/ hdl also get worse?
Looking at the PURE study where low levels of fat directly correlate to increased risks of lots of things, I worry that whilst most of the western world is not in danger of not eating enough fats simply because our diets are so rich in the first place, the people most at risk are those that are the most metabolically unhealthy - which is generally overweight people ( mainly women who usually comply better - though you sound like a person very committed to succeeding ) . I'm fairly sure that my own source of ill health was precisely that, because I am very committed to succeeding at what I do as well.
These are precisely the people not getting enough fat because of their low calorie low fat diets - ie the ones most affected by the current obesity/ diabetes epidemic .
The figures in the attached table are shown as percentages of total diets. As such the total calorie intake is going to be a lot higher than anyone on a very strict diet.
Of course on first glance that would suggest that those eating a diet low in carb will be at least risk however - these tables often mislead. especially when couched in percentage terms.
Looking at these tables my own intake of total saturated fats at around 35g is 25% of my actual calorie intake of 1250 calories, but that would be 16% of a 2000 calorie normal diet for a woman- so not as far to the right of the table as a first glance would suggest.
If your total saturated fats is only say 15g - which it sounds like it is - then that would only be 5% of a normal 2500 calorie male diet which is at the extreme end of low fat intake on these tables for saturated fats, and from what you say, all the other fats as well.
Sorry if you have already been through this thought process and concluded that it does not apply to you for some medical reason